Kenneth Glad
Foreign troops do not always answer to local courts when accusations arise overseas. One case in eastern England has exposed how those rules can affect civilians, prosecutors and military allies.
Capt Jacob Wulfson, a US Air Force F-35 pilot based at RAF Lakenheath, was convicted by US court martial in England after an incident involving Sarah Steele, a British academic, in Cambridge.
According to The Guardian, US military prosecutors alleged that Steele was drugged, strangled and subjected to non-consensual penetration after going to Wulfson’s apartment in December 2023.
The military panel convicted Wulfson of strangulation and disobeying an order not to contact Steele. It acquitted him, however, of the non-consensual penetration and drugging allegations.
Prosecutors sought five years. He received six months’ confinement, dismissal from the Air Force and a reprimand.
Why the US could ask
The legal route runs through the NATO Status of Forces Agreement. Under Article VII, the receiving state generally has priority in many local offences, but the sending state may ask for a waiver where it considers the case important.
The state with priority must give that request “sympathetic consideration,” though it can refuse.
The point is significant because the incident happened in Cambridge, not on a US installation, and the complainant was a British civilian.
Under such circumstances, UK authorities would ordinarily be expected to have a strong claim to handle the case.
However, The Guardian reported that Cambridgeshire Police agreed after discussions with US authorities that the American military would take the lead in the investigation.
CPS guidance on cases involving more than one possible jurisdiction says prosecutors should consider where harm occurred, victims’ interests, evidence, delay, witnesses and the suspect’s links to the UK.
A military panel decided punishment
The trial did not follow the model of an English crown court. It was a US court martial, held inside RAF Lakenheath, with military lawyers, a military judge and a panel of serving Air Force officers rather than a civilian jury.
That distinction shaped both the setting and the atmosphere of the case. The proceedings took place inside a military base, not an ordinary public courthouse, and the verdict was delivered through a justice system designed for the discipline of service members.
Steele later told the newspaper: “The ordeal I went through was incredibly distressing and degrading. It felt intrusive and archaic.”
Her criticism echoed wider concerns about whether military proceedings are suited to cases involving alleged violence against civilians.
Rachel VanLandingham, a former US Air Force judge advocate, told the outlet: “The British authorities should be fighting to maintain jurisdiction. Why should they trust the American military justice system with anything related to sexual assault?”
Britain has refused before
The jurisdiction issue is not theoretical. The Guardian reports that more than 12,000 US personnel are stationed at at least 15 bases and facilities in the UK, and that other cases involving British victims have been handled through courts martial.
But UK authorities can push back when they decide a case should remain in the civilian system. One example cited by the paper involved Mikayla Hayes, a US mechanic accused after a fatal road collision in Norfolk.
In that case, American authorities sought to claim jurisdiction, but the Crown Prosecution Service challenged the move, and succeeded, meaning the case stayed in the British courts rather than being transferred to a US military forum.
Hayes was later tried at Norwich Crown Court and acquitted. The case shows that Britain does have the legal ability to resist US jurisdiction requests, even if that power is not always used.
That example leaves a practical question after Wulfson’s case: When an alleged offence happens in England, away from a base, and the complainant is British, what threshold must be met before UK authorities allow the case to leave the civilian courts?
Sources: The Guardian; NATO Status of Forces Agreement; Crown Prosecution Service guidance.
